8/2/2019 CapCom 2008 Minutes 12 08

1/8

MarytandTransportationAuth orltyCAPIT l\L COIvl1vlITTEE IvIEETrnG

Notes of December 4,2008DR...C\FT

Authority Membe IS:Clwirtmn:Waite r Woodfo rd - attende dMembers:IvIichae1Whitso n - via telae onfe reneeMary Beyer Halss y - attendedRev. Dr. William Calhoun - attendedMDOT Attendees:Le ifDormsjo, Chie f of S taffMdTAAttendees:Geoff Kolberg, Doug Hutcheson, Bill Kirk, Larry-Thomas, Bob Jordan, Jim Wesselhoft-:Candac e Poag, Sam Triandos, Dennis Simpson, IvIelissa Williams, Suhair Alkha tib, RussWalto, GlenSmith, IvIegan Blum, Christina Thompson, Sandi Clifford, Terri Moss, DaveRoehme r, Gary Jackson, Georg e Fish, Randy Brown, Kare n Kahl (RK&K), IvIikeVaughan (Stewart Associates), Shawn Burnett (Wilson T. Ballard Co.), Kerri.Corde rman(Wilson T. Ballard Co.)

Chairman Woodfo rd cailed t h e meeting to order at 9 :27 am.

8/2/2019 CapCom 2008 Minutes 12 08

2/8

Chairman Woodford asked if the Members had any comments or questions regarding the notesof November 6,2008. In the absence of comments or questions, Chairman Woodford requests amotion for approval of the notes as written. Member Calhoun motions for approval with MemberHalsey seconding the motion. All say aye, the motion is carried.

Chesapeake Lighthouse Visitor's CenterSam Triandos, Acting Chief Planning Officer, began by giving a brief history of the project andthen introduced Mike Vaughan of Stewart Associates to present. Mr. Vaughan gave apresentation on the history of the project as well as an overview of the current plans for theproject. He indicated that he was there to request that the Authority allow the land owned in thearea be used for the purpose of constructing the Chesapeake Lighthouse Visitors Center. Mr.Vaughan then went through a paper presentation that he provided to the Members. He indicatedthat this he was not there to request any funding; however, if feasible funding would beappreciated. He noted that this facility would be state of the art and that all participants wouldbenefit.Mr. Vaughan then introduced Vernon of Cecil County to give the county's opinion on thematter. Vernon indicated that the county is very excited about the venture and he believes this isa golden opportunity that will benefit both the county and the state. He indicated that theAuthority is a vital component in this project. Chairman Woodford asked for any comments fromthe staff.Sam said that her one concern is how this will compete with Chesapeake and Maryland houses.Mr. Vaughan indicated that it is a concern; however, the major purpose of this facility iseducational. This facility will be more targeted towards informing people of what is going onwith the bay and other educational items associated with the state. Sam indicated that a concernis how this new building will affect the concession revenue at the Maryland and Chesapeakehouses.Sam asked for Melissa Williams, Planning Manager, to comment on the traffic aspect of theventure. Melissa indicated that the traffic impact study has been received and no comments canbe made at this time because of the formal process that the traffic study must go through. Sheindicated that preliminarily the concerns would be with the interchanges and the traffic patterns.Sam commented that the comments that were being made were in no way negative and that theAuthority is not opposed to the project. However, there are concerns and they need to beaddressed. Member Whitson commented that he understands and we are right to question this.He also noted that there is a great deal of other questions that would involve this project.Chairman Woodford asked Sandi Clifford, Deputy Counsel, for any comments on the project.Sandi indicated that at this point she would like to learn more about the project before makingany comments.Chairman Woodford asked ifMr. Vaughan was there to request a lease of the property, and Mr.Vaughan indicated yes they were. Chairman Woodford indicated that the legal aspects of leasingthe land would need to be discussedChairman Woodford questioned whether the signing for the structure had been planned. Mr.Vaughan indicated that the signing had not been and would not be planned until everyone comesto agreement on moving forward with the proj ect.Member Halsey asked Mr. Vaughan for a time line on the discussion with the other Marylandentities. Mr. Vaughan indicated that timing in relation to gaming depends on how long the state

Capital Committee NotesDecember 4, 2008

Page 2

8/2/2019 CapCom 2008 Minutes 12 08

3/8

takes to assemble the commission. He noted that it could be as early as next summer forawarding and then it would take a year in construction. He indicated that it could be a few yearsbefore the doors open.Member Halsey asked what the preliminary numbers of $2500.00 an acre per year wouldsupport. Mr. Vaughan indicated that the total venture would be approximately 3 to 5 million andthat no numbers have been set because depending on what parties decide to participate, thenumber may rise or fall. Member Halsey noted that it is important to the TransportationAuthority to know that if we are leasing the land for a nominal amount that one day we will notbe getting it back if the revenue stream isn't there.Leif Dormsjo asked if Stewart Associates has a traffic consultant. Mr. Vaughan indicated thattheir current traffic consultant is Gunther.Mr. Dormsjo then asked what level of marketing analysis has been done for the gaming facility.Mr. Vaughan indicated that Penn has done analyses of the marketing aspects to make sure thatthis is worth the millions of dollars of investment.Chairman Woodford indicated that there are several things that the Authority will need to pursue.He noted that the matter of the disposition of the property by lease or whatever procedure wefollow should be considered, traffic information as it's developed for evaluation would need tobe provided, information on how the facilities will be signed to make travelers alert should beprovided, an indication of the schedule will need to be provided, and input from any other stateagencies as to what their participation will be should also be provided. Chairman Woodfordthanked the men for their presentation and with no action or follow up moved on to the nextitem.ACTION:NoneFOLLOW UP:NoneContract No: HT 2025-000-002Replace Water Line to Fairfield Service BuildingBill Kirk, Facilities Engineering Manager, presented the item and indicated that bids were takenon October 17, 2008 and that the low bid came in at 36% below the engineers estimate. He notedthat the project is now with MBE for the review. He also noted that we are ready to award, thatthis falls under Ron Freeland's delegated authority, and that this project will not need to gobefore the Board of Public Works. Chairman Woodford questioned the status of the MBEapproval and if all goals were met. Bill indicated that the contractor has met all of the MBEgoals. Chairman Woodford asked if Ron had seen this request yet. Sandi Clifford, DeputyCounsel, indicated that Ron had not yet seen this project. Chairman Woodford asked if this waswithin Ron's delegated authority. Geoff indicated that the dollar amount fell within the delegatedauthority; however, there were questions because the bid amount was so close to the cap.Chairman Woodford indicated that the Members would submit for approval pending the MBEresults.ACTION:

Capital Committee NotesDecember 4, 2008

Page 3

8/2/2019 CapCom 2008 Minutes 12 08

4/8

Based on discussion of Contract No. HT 2025-000-002, a motion was made by Member Whitsonand seconded by Member Calhoun to submit the contract for approval under the delegatedauthority. The motion was carried unanimously.FOLLOW UP:NoneCCTV BriefmgBob Jordan, Manager of ITS &Electrical Engineering, provided a brief presentation andoverview of the Authority's CCTV usage. He indicated that at the August 2008 Authoritymeeting there were questions that were raised about the program and this presentation is inresponse to the questions.Bob gave an explanation of the problems that would arise should the Authority wish to recordtraffic cameras. Geoff Kolberg, Chief Engineer, indicated that the problem with recording trafficcameras comes about when a Public Information Act (PIA) request is made. These requests canconsume a lot of time and cause a lot of work. Chairman Woodford asked if this item was raisedby a member at the Authority meeting and Geoff answered yes.Member Halsey questioned the industry standard on recording traffic. Bob indicated that he isnot aware of any agency that records traffic video all the time. Chairman Woodford asked Bobfor some of the benefits of recording traffic cameras. Bob indicated that the main reason torecord traffic cameras would be to record incidents and provide data to law enforcement.Member Halsey asked how the cameras would be recorded. Bob indicated that NVR (networkvideo recorder) would be utilized; however, this would result in huge amounts of DVDs toretain.Leif Dormsjo asked Bob to explain more about incident detection. Bob indicated that we haveincident detection in the tunnels and the computers recognize when an incident occurs andrecords one minute before the incident and up to three minutes after the incident so that thewhole incident is recorded. He also noted that we are piloting with pan tilt zoom cameras on thehighways. There is a 3 minute learning period for the cameras before they go into detectionmode and they will detect when there are slows in traffic. Bob indicated that this is a test ofworking with the operators more to see what the success rate is. Leif indicated that he is moreinterested in the manual decision making process that would allow us to preserve the video for

sn see a majornoted that it should be conveyed to the Authority that the Members do not feel that there is amajor need to record traffic cameras. He noted that if the Authority members decide to pursuethis matter further a plan of action in regards to recording will need to be developed. ChairmanWoodford indicated that in response to the inquiry the Members go on record as saying with theinfo provided to us we do not see the benefit of recording and if the Authority members do wantto pursue they need to instruct the staff as such. All Members agree. Chairman Woodfordindicated that this should be presented to the Authority and they can decide whether they want topursue.

Capital Committee NotesDecember 4, 2008

Page 4

8/2/2019 CapCom 2008 Minutes 12 08

5/8

ACTION:NoneFOLLOW UP:Present to the Authority at their next scheduled meeting.West Side Mobility Study (1-495/1-270)Dennis Simpson, Acting Director of Capital Planning, briefly introduced the subject matter. Henoted that the team from SHA and VDOT presented to Chairman Porcari at a meeting on thefeasibility of the West Side Mobility Study. Based on the presentation to Chairman Porcari, heasked that it be presented to the Authority members so that they may be informed of the tollingoptions.Karen Kahl of RK&K gave a presentation that followed the inserts included in the materials.Chairman Woodford questioned whether they were there to decide to proceed with the P3. RussWalto, Project Manager for Division of Capital Planning, indicated that this is just a briefing andthat all other parties will be updated and it will be brought back before Chairman Porcari in thespnng.Chairman Woodford indicated that will be interesting to see what comes of the midtermimprovements. Russ indicated that he could corne back and brief the committee again.Chairman Woodford asked for any other questions. In the absence of questions, he thanks thepresenters and moves to the next item.ACTION:NoneFOLLOW UP:NoneNiceBridge Improvement ProjectGlen Smith, Project Manager for Division of Capital Planning, gave a presentation based on theslides included in the capital materials.Chairman Woodford indicated that he believes there are too many alternates. He said that thereare nine alternates and maybe it could be cut down to four or five. Dennis Simpson, ActingDirector of Capital Planning, indicated that the problem with this is that these alternates weretaken forth to the meeting and it was decided that the current alternates were agreed to bepresented at the public meetings. Chairman Woodford indicated that he would like to try tominimize the number of alternates presented if possible.Glen Smith introduced Shawn Burnett of Wilson T. Ballard Co. to present the alternates.Chairman Woodford asked what Dahlgren Naval Base's position on the land use is. Itwas notedthat Dahlgren does not want us there at all and there has been talk with members about going tocongressional representatives on both sides of the rivers regarding the position. ChairmanWoodford asked how the northern crossing would impact the community access. Megan Blum,Environmental Manager for Division of Capital Planning, indicated that it would not affect theiraccess.

Capital Committee NotesDecember 4, 2008

Page 5

8/2/2019 CapCom 2008 Minutes 12 08

6/8

Chairman Woodford asked what kind of input we have been getting from the focus group at thistime. Glen indicated that we are getting responses that everyone agrees that something should bedone and constructed as soon as possible.Geoff Kolberg, Chief Engineer, indicated that he had three quick items relating to the updates onthe Nice Bridge Approach and Maintenance Buildings to present.Beginning with the approach work, Gary Jackson, Nice Bridge Administrator, indicated that theconstruction has been started and everything was operating smoothly.Geoff explained that part two was work that was brought forth to the members and had addedbeen added to the original contract in response to findings during routine inspections. This workcovers the deteriorated anchor bolts on the bridge.Bill Kirk, Facilities Engineering Manager then described the upgrades to the Nice BridgeBuildings.Chairman Woodford asked for any further comments or questions on this item. In the absence ofquestions or comments, presenters are thanked and the members move to the next item.ACTION:NoneFOLLOW UP:NoneCongestion Pricing/ Open Road Tolling (ORT)Dennis Simpson, Acting Director of Capital Planning, gave a presentation based on the slidesincluded in the materials.Chairman Woodford pointed out that this is not an attempt to increase revenue. This is anattempt to control the traffic on the bridge and cause people to spread out their travel time.Chairman Woodford indicated that this is interesting and there is some work to be done. He alsoindicated that we can go with ORT whether or not we go with congestion pricing. Dennis agreed.Member Halsey questioned how much ORT increases the flow of traffic. Geoff Kolberg, ChiefEngineer, responded that it is minute change.Chairman Woodford indicated that the commuter plan should be examined.

ACTION:NoneFOLLOW UP:NoneInfonnational Items

Capital Committee NotesDecember 4, 2008

Page 6

8/2/2019 CapCom 2008 Minutes 12 08

7/8

Chairman Woodford asked for any comments on the informational items. He indicated that itmay be helpful at the next meeting to provide a map of the 1-95 projects.

In the absence of any further discussion, Member Halsey motions to adjourn and ChairmanWoodford seconds. The meeting adjourned at 12:20 pm. The next meeting is scheduled forThursday, January 8, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. in Suite 160 at the Point Breeze complex located at 2310Broening Highway.

Capital Committee NotesDecember 4, 2008

Page 7

8/2/2019 CapCom 2008 Minutes 12 08

8/8

Approved Extra Work AuthorizationsNovember 2008

Contract No. FT-2032-000-006 (Request No.6) - Hauling Permit Transfer - Baltimore CityContractor: The Six M Company, Inc.Amount of EWA: $ 13,505.59Original Contract Amount: $ 1,063,061.80% Increase by EWA: 1.27 %% Increase Total Contract: 13.85 %Approved: 11/06/08 (TFP 031-09)

Contract No. FT-912-000-006 (Request No.5) - Install Northbound and Southbound ExpressToll Lanes and Pavement Rehabilitation at Toll Plaza

Contractor: P. Flanigan & Sons, Inc.Amount of EWA: $ 70,663.69Original Contract Amount: $ 10,869,485.60% Increase by EWA: 1.58 %% Increase Total Contract: 2.23 %Approved: 11/06/08 (TFP 032-09)

Capital Committee NotesDecember 4, 2008

Page 8